Parking Eye PCN

Just had my POPLA decision through...

"The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith."

"The car park is a paid car park as stated on signage placed throughout the car park and therefore as the appellant was parked without purchasing parking time, he was parked in breach of the terms and conditions.
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to show that they have the authority to issue parking charge notices and they have not shown the existence of a contract between themselves and the landowner. The appellant states that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss as no loss was incurred. The appellant additionally states that the operator has failed to provide evidence of compliance with the BPA Code of Practice and the signage at the site is inappropriate.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, from the wording of the signage at the site, it would appear that the charge represents liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance and therefore the amount sought should represent the losses incurred as a result of the breach.

In this case, the operator has stated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred as ‘significant costs are incurred in managing the car park to ensure that motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions.’ The operator has stated that the costs include the erection and maintenance of site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems, employment of office based administrative staff, membership fees, and general costs including stationary and postage.

As the charge represents liquidated damages, the operator is required to show that the losses stated are directly related to the appellant’s 16 minute stay in the car park, however a number of the costs referred to are costs that would be incurred in the general day to day running of the business and are operating costs rather than costs incurred as a result of remaining in the car park without purchasing parking time.
Although the operator has stated that the charge is commercially justified, the amount sought for a breach of the terms and conditions cannot be the entire source of their income and the charges must be loss based rather than profit based in order to amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss. It would appear that the courts have accepted commercial justification for a parking charge where the operator has substantiated the loss incurred, or the loss that might reasonably be incurred, by the breach however in this case as the costs sought by the operator are costs that would normally be incurred in their business, the amount sought is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and cannot be commercially justifiable.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Thanks for all the help guys it's much appreciated!